RectalFury:Oh, so you can be a stupid asshole and jaywalk across 6th ave regardless of the speed limit?

I always like how this "argument" (which is really no such thing by even the loosest definition) seems to imply that the person who hits the jaywalker doesn't suffer any negative effect either. As if they can just keep going and don't have to stop and give a statement, possibly get fined and/or charged depending on other factors or have to deal with insurance and getting the car repaired.

Clearly the only possible benefactor here is jaywalkers. If a person is able to stop in time instead of hitting the person, only the non-victim benefits.

That said, the way the idiots who live in NYC drive, you might want to worry about getting them down to the CURRENT limit from their actual average speed of "HOLY SHAIT MY FARKING ASS HAIR'S ON FIRE GET OUTTA MY WAY!"

skozlaw:RectalFury: Oh, so you can be a stupid asshole and jaywalk across 6th ave regardless of the speed limit?

I always like how this "argument" (which is really no such thing by even the loosest definition) seems to imply that the person who hits the jaywalker doesn't suffer any negative effect either. As if they can just keep going and don't have to stop and give a statement, possibly get fined and/or charged depending on other factors or have to deal with insurance and getting the car repaired.

Clearly the only possible benefactor here is jaywalkers. If a person is able to stop in time instead of hitting the person, only the non-victim benefits.

That said, the way the idiots who live in NYC drive, you might want to worry about getting them down to the CURRENT limit from their actual average speed of "HOLY SHAIT MY FARKING ASS HAIR'S ON FIRE GET OUTTA MY WAY!"

/ D.C. drivers are still far worse, though

NOTHING beats Boston in the US. You have to go to Naples, Nairobi, or Calcutta to get worse.

Man, people are always trashing the bus drivers. Like keeping that schedule is easy with the iPod-zombies lumbering out in front of you (then screaming at you for not killing them), or arrogant cyclist passing twenty cars on the right before blowing through a red in front of you (then screaming at you for not killing them). The bus is your friend.

The_Mad_Dutchman:Man, people are always trashing the bus drivers. Like keeping that schedule is easy with the iPod-zombies lumbering out in front of you (then screaming at you for not killing them), or arrogant cyclist passing twenty cars on the right before blowing through a red in front of you (then screaming at you for not killing them). The bus is your friend.

Just put GPS and dataloggers in all vehicles (bicycles too), issue on-the-spot fines and be done with it. You know that's where it's going eventually anyway. You can even program them for other violations like illegal turns, failure to use signals, parking in loading zones, etc. Played right, vehicle fines could fund the entire city government and, bonus!, your every move could be recorded to make sure the dystopia is complete.

divx88:Smells like people don't want to pay attention to their surroundings.

We have a number of elementary school zones around here that are 15 MPH. When the kids are all inside having class and there isn't much point doing 15, I tend to completely tune out. I'd say I'm a worse driver at 15 MPH than I am at 25 or 30 MPH.

It's been many years since I've driven in NYC, but when I was there I didn't even realize there was a speed limit, other than the then statewide 55. I never saw a speed limit sign anywhere, and when traffic was actually moving (yes, it did happen) I drove the same speed as the taxis, which was usually 50-60.

Considering what they are really asking for is 20MPH in RESIDENTIAL areas, I don't see the huge issue. Most of lower Manhattan will not fall into this category I would imagine. The main thorough fares in the city will still have higher speed limits. I would imagine most of the change will be to boroughs outside of Manhattan where there are many, truly residential streets. Many cities through out the US already have a default 20MPH limit unless otherwise posted.

"We are working to fine-tune this life-saving legislation that will slow down automobiles on narrow residential streets.

So yes, while a bus may still kill you at 20MPH as at 40MPH... it is not hard to find the math to show that a bus stops MUCH more quickly from 20 than at 40. In fact, stopping distance is the whole reason one mother is pushing for this.

Lokkii:Quick and dirty- without putting down my drink 148- out of 8,336,967 is something like .00001 percent of the population. Clearly we must inconvenience all the survivors! It's the right thing to do!

~.002%, but you have to discount all the foreign tourists who were hit while gawking at signs. They only count for half.

you have pee hands:Lokkii: Quick and dirty- without putting down my drink 148- out of 8,336,967 is something like .00001 percent of the population. Clearly we must inconvenience all the survivors! It's the right thing to do!

~.002%, but you have to discount all the foreign tourists who were hit while gawking at signs. They only count for half.

How many narrow, residential streets are the foreign tourists walking around and gawking at signs? How much of this will apply to Manhattan central park and below, where the vast majority of tourists will be?

DarkVader:It's been many years since I've driven in NYC, but when I was there I didn't even realize there was a speed limit, other than the then statewide 55. I never saw a speed limit sign anywhere, and when traffic was actually moving (yes, it did happen) I drove the same speed as the taxis, which was usually 50-60.

Didn't seem too fast to me.

There is a limit that's not posted everywhere and that I want to say is 35mph. Could be lower now.

wingnut396:So yes, while a bus may still kill you at 20MPH as at 40MPH... it is not hard to find the math to show that a bus stops MUCH more quickly from 20 than at 40. In fact, stopping distance is the whole reason one mother is pushing for this.

All the bus vs. pedestrian strikes I've witnessed have been where the pedestrian entered the road at a distance where the bus could have been idling forward and the accident still would have occurred. Hell, I even had some dingbat run full speed into the side of my bus as I was coming up to a stop. Pedestrian culpability is very often overlooked in vehicle on person accidents. Few years ago at IU, some college kid ran, just full-bore ran without looking, into the street and was killed by a car that wasn't speeding or driving recklessly. What was the University's response? Install islands into the middle of the major roads which serve only to bring traffic to a snarled deadlock three or four times a day, every day. This is just more of the same. Sometimes - and this is really hard for some people to accept - there just isn't an overarching social issue which can be solved by feel-good legislation. Sometimes people just act stupid, and sometimes they die. It's godawful, but that's the way it is.

The two things I hate the most about driving in San Francisco are the farking bicycle messengers and idiot pedestrians who see no problem with stepping right into traffic and expecting the cars to stop on a dime. They wouldn't last a day in Los Angeles where running over jay walkers is considered a civic duty.

whidbey:Kit Fister: cig-mkr: Ban ALL CARS from the cities and use these. Think Green people,

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 275x183]

whidbey? is that you?

Actually, I doubt the picture is sincere.

That said, are you people really biatching about a city speed zone? We already had threats to defect with Obamacare. And Big Gulps.

Is it time to play Civil War Bingo yet?

I personally think, if I had my druthers, large cities would be changed thusly:

1. There would be designated major thoroughfares that would be street-accessible for vehicles, and along which would be parking structures. A few major bisecting arteries to allow folks to drive into the city, or near to the city, in order to access the city proper.

2. Other thoroughfares would be designated accessible by foot traffic, bicycles, or mass transit. Smaller, up-scale bus services could be retained for a higher fee for corporations that wanted their executives to have the "luxury" such a limo service would offer them.

3. Deliveries of tangible goods by large transport would be permissible with a permit. (So, yeah, you can still hire a moving van or have UPS drop off stuff for you.)

4. Commuters coming in from outside of the city/city living space would receive a tax incentive to park and utilize transportation such as commuter rail.

5. Access to large urban centers from highways would be limited, with the majority of traffic shunted onto bypasses.

6. Any requirement of a specialized vehicle within the urban zone would require a permit.

Yes, yes, quasi-conservative antisocial old me is OK with the above. If you're going to cram a shiatload of living space and working space together in cities, then invariably the traffic flowing through such a crushing hellscape of humanity is going to be a nightmare for all involved. Further, the dense concentration of cars in such areas promote extremely high pollution rates, and are probably about as bad for us to breathe as second hand smoke.

I ALSO, and you'll probably laugh at me for this, believe that large office buildings and anything above a certain size should have a couple of floors, at least, dedicated to greenhouses for two reasons: a. promote exposure to nature, and b. to promote larger-scale green spaces within urban centers which serve as replacement for deforestation foisted upon us by paving over large sections of the land. Old warehouse spaces? Turn them into urban farms or more greenhouse space.

I could even see turning places like San Francisco and New York into basically the hanging gardens of babylon, with the inclusion of green space on roofs, inside buildings, and inside older industrial spaces no longer being used as industrial space.

Also, think of the neat things you could do if you encouraged agricultural projects, classes, and rehab centers to grow food closer to the city, with the proceeds going to help support those programs, while equally improving the available foodstocks?

/yeah, yeah, I know, shut up commie.//goes back to his gun threads and muttering "they're takin er jerbs!"

But other than the greenhouse stuff, it doesn't really deviate too much from what planners are already striving for in Transit Oriented Development. And a Growth Management Act would ensure agricultural activity near urban centers,.

The problem is trying to sell the idea as a whole to densely populated areas like the East coast. They'd have to redraw some shiat for sure and set aside areas that are now suburbs (good luck with that). The West Coast definitely had better foresight, but yes, we're still fighting sprawl out here.

OgreMagi:The two things I hate the most about driving in San Francisco are the farking bicycle messengers and idiot pedestrians who see no problem with stepping right into traffic and expecting the cars to stop on a dime. They wouldn't last a day in Los Angeles where running over jay walkers is considered a civic duty.

Oh God so much THIS.

I love SF, except when I have to leave the apartment and go anywhere. If I could work remotely, which in tech I absolutely could if we were allowed, what I pay for a small rental apartment in a decent neighborhood could buy me a mansion someplace nice and quiet.

OgreMagi:The two things I hate the most about driving in San Francisco are the farking bicycle messengers and idiot pedestrians who see no problem with stepping right into traffic and expecting the cars to stop on a dime. They wouldn't last a day in Los Angeles where running over jay walkers is considered a civic duty.

The bums in SF are the worst I've seen regarding walking out in front of oncoming cars. They look you straight in the eye when they do it.

I found that dropping down to 2nd gear, revving the engine up and then steering directly at them tends to get them running back to the sidewalk.